Pagayon v. Holder
675 F.3d 1182
9th Cir.2011Background
- Pagayon is a native of the Philippines and a former lawful permanent resident of the United States.
- Removal proceedings began on November 30, 2006, based on California convictions for firearm possession by a felon/addict and for possession of methamphetamine.
- At the initial hearing, Pagayon admitted (pleading stage) to his noncitizen status and to the charged convictions; the IJ accepted the admissions and found removability.
- A successor IJ allowed Pagayon to belatedly deny citizenship and refrained from pursuing the removability issue beyond the pleading-stage admission; the hearing proceeded on citizenship and relief from removal.
- The IJ concluded Pagayon was removable, denied asylum and CAT relief, and denied withholding of removal; the Board summarily affirmed.
- Pagayon petitioned for review to the Ninth Circuit, challenging removability, withholding, and due-process arguments, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removability based on drug conviction | Pagayon relied on Perez-Mejia to keep removability issues to pleading-stage admissions. | Government contends the drug-conviction admission establishes removability at pleading stage or evidentiary stage as appropriate. | Removability was established by pleading-stage admission of methamphetamine offense; subsequent evidence did not negate. |
| Relief from removal (withholding/asylum) | Pagayon argues eligibility for withholding and asylum based on persecution by NP and political opinion. | IJ properly analyzed withholding and concluded failure to show likelihood of persecution; asylum not established. | Pagayon did not prove entitlement to withholding; asylum jeopardized by lack of well-founded fear based on protected grounds. |
| Due-process claims | IJ denied time for a post-hearing letter and refused telephonic testimony; claim of due process violation. | No prejudicial impact shown; record supported the IJ’s determinations. | No reversible due-process violation; no prejudice shown. |
| Exhaustion and administrative-review scope | Pagayon exhausted claims by timely notice of appeal and Board reconsideration filings. | Board and statute require exhaustion of administrative remedies for review. | Exhaustion satisfied; court reviews IJ/Board rulings on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez-Mejia v. Holder, 663 F.3d 403 (9th Cir. 2011) (pleading vs. evidentiary stages; admissions can relieve government burden at pleading stage)
- Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (definition of the drug-conviction predicate under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i))
- Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for reviewing credibility and removability findings)
- Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2011) (well-founded fear and protected-ground analysis in asylum context)
- Cardoza-Fonseca v. INS, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (well-founded fear standard for asylum)
- Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion and procedural review framework)